Online advertising has leveled the playing field, allowing smaller brands to compete with big names. Platforms like Google make it easy to capture attention, which is why even giants like Nike are losing market share to newer players. This shift spans all non-regulated industries. Without online ads, launching a nationwide brand would require enormous budgets, leaving us stuck with the same old monopolies.
If you're right about that being the dominant effect we should see small businesses increase as a portion of GDP as online ads become more prevalent, but as best I can tell we aren't seeing that at all. For example this[0] chart from the US Chamber of Commerce shows their share of the economy actually shrinking significantly.
An alternative effect could be that online ads are an avenue for better resourced established companies to out compete and stifle upstarts. Startups are always pressed for resources and running an effective online ad campaign can take significant resources.
You're surely right that some small businesses have benefited from the online ad market, but I suspect that on average larger companies have benefited to a greater degree.
> if you're right about that being the dominant effect we should see small businesses increase as a portion of GDP as online ads become more prevalent
Ceteris paribus. Running a small business in most states involves more rules today than it did in 2000. (Common denominator: the cost of financial transactions due to post-9/11 anti-money laundering rules.)
How has it leveled the playing field? It's now become an arms race of bidding for the top ad spot, even for your own brand name. The big players can out spend the little guy and even be top ranking on searches for them.
Large companies spend quite a bit of money on online advertising, and also on research on that. They test their materials, they have data teams for comparing campaign results. And they can hijack other brand names if they pay enough. I wouldn't place my washing machine on your playing field.
